Interesting debate,,,my view...
Do we need the army - maybe,,,,,do we need lethal force, only if the situation demands - what is certainly needed is a more 'robust' and 'direct' approach to stopping this, either through force or levels of manpower.
think about this - police in the uk are trained to try and contain riots, then collect evidence to be used in trials of anyone involved, the army's training for public order is more direct, it is to surpress the riot by any means required, doing it quickly and as efficently as possible, and that means inflicting casulaties on anyone who will not disperse or surrender immedialtely.
For public order use of the army is a very heavy and blunt tool, and one that the current crop of politicians are scared to even get close to - but the alternative is worse, and was on the news channels today - large groups of vigilantes looking for trouble, which will escalate and turn into gang warfare.
Either our politican grow some balls and make some hard decisions quickly or there is every chance it could be a very bumpy few months.
Finally,
Message to LuptonM
- stop being a ****, and critising people just because they are older, at least they have some experience of life and what it takes to survive. Most of us here were around in the 1980's and life was a hell of a lot harder than today, especially for those who beleive that 'respect' is due to them for nothing more than having an atitude.
Respect like experience is earned, and both take time to gain,,,give yourself about 20years experience of life as an adult, and then you can put forth your views without sounding like a muppet.
Plus, 'if' you are attending Oxford uni, and are about to go into 'investment banking' just remember you've had a few very priveledged few years as a student, doing not a lot more than attending lectures, and maybe the odd party or ten, that combined with you route into being a 'banker' is because of family connections rather than merit, will put you firmly in the sights of the very people you seek to applaud.
Do we need the army - maybe,,,,,do we need lethal force, only if the situation demands - what is certainly needed is a more 'robust' and 'direct' approach to stopping this, either through force or levels of manpower.
think about this - police in the uk are trained to try and contain riots, then collect evidence to be used in trials of anyone involved, the army's training for public order is more direct, it is to surpress the riot by any means required, doing it quickly and as efficently as possible, and that means inflicting casulaties on anyone who will not disperse or surrender immedialtely.
For public order use of the army is a very heavy and blunt tool, and one that the current crop of politicians are scared to even get close to - but the alternative is worse, and was on the news channels today - large groups of vigilantes looking for trouble, which will escalate and turn into gang warfare.
Either our politican grow some balls and make some hard decisions quickly or there is every chance it could be a very bumpy few months.
Finally,
Message to LuptonM
- stop being a ****, and critising people just because they are older, at least they have some experience of life and what it takes to survive. Most of us here were around in the 1980's and life was a hell of a lot harder than today, especially for those who beleive that 'respect' is due to them for nothing more than having an atitude.
Respect like experience is earned, and both take time to gain,,,give yourself about 20years experience of life as an adult, and then you can put forth your views without sounding like a muppet.
Plus, 'if' you are attending Oxford uni, and are about to go into 'investment banking' just remember you've had a few very priveledged few years as a student, doing not a lot more than attending lectures, and maybe the odd party or ten, that combined with you route into being a 'banker' is because of family connections rather than merit, will put you firmly in the sights of the very people you seek to applaud.